55

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sy vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 127263. April 12, 2000.*
FILIPINA Y. SY, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, BRANCH XLI, and
FERNANDO SY, respondents.
Actions; Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; Although the Supreme
Court has repeatedly ruled that litigants cannot raise an issue for the first
time on appeal, as this would contravene the basic rules of fair play and
justice, the observance of procedural rules may be relaxed, noting that
technicalities are not ends in themselves but exist to protect and promote
the substantive rights of litigants.Although we have repeatedly ruled
that litigants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal, as this
would contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice, in a number of
instances, we have relaxed observance of procedural rules, noting that
technicalities are not ends in themselves but exist to protect and promote
substantive rights of litigants. We said that certain rules ought not to be
applied with severity and rigidity if by so doing, the very reason for their
existence would be defeated. Hence, when substantial justice plainly
requires, exempting a particular case from the operation of technicalities
should not be subject to cavil. In our view, the case at bar requires that we
address the issue of the validity of the marriage between Filipina and
Fernando which petitioner claims is void from the beginning for lack of a
marriage license, in order to arrive at a just resolution of a deeply seated
and violent conflict between the parties. Note, however, that here the
pertinent facts are not disputed; and what is required now is a declaration
of their effects according to existing law.
Husband and Wife; Marriage; Marriage License; A marriage
license is a formal requirement; its absence renders the marriage void ab
initio.November 15, 1973, also appears as the date of marriage of the
parents in both their sons and daughters birth certificates, which are also
attached as Annexes B and C in the petition for declaration of
absolute nullity of marriage before the trial court, and thereafter marked
as Exhibits B and C in the course of the trial. These pieces of
evidence on record plainly and indubitably show that
_______________
*

SECOND DIVISION.
551

VOL. 330, APRIL 12, 2000

Sy vs. Court of Appeals

551

on the day of the marriage ceremony, there was no marriage license. A

marriage license is a formal requirement; its absence renders the marriage
void ab initio. In addition, the marriage contract shows that the marriage
license, numbered 6237519, was issued in Carmona, Cavite, yet, neither
petitioner nor private respondent ever resided in Carmona.
Evidence; Pleadings and Practice; Although the marriage certificate,
the marriage license and other pieces of documentary evidence were only
photocopies, the fact that these have been examined and admitted by the
trial court, with no objections having been made as to their authenticity
and due execution, means that these documents are deemed sufficient
proof of the facts contained therein.We note that their marriage
certificate and marriage license are only photocopies. So are the birth
certificates of their son Frederick and daughter Farrah Sheryll.
Nevertheless, these documents were marked as Exhibits during the course
of the trial below, which shows that these have been examined and
admitted by the trial court, with no objections having been made as to
their authenticity and due execution. Likewise, no objection was
interposed to petitioners testimony in open court when she affirmed that
the date of the actual celebration of their marriage was on November 15,
1973. We are of the view, therefore, that having been admitted in
evidence, with the adverse party failing to timely object thereto, these
documents are deemed sufficient proof of the facts contained therein.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Benjamin H. Razon for petitioner.
Cario & Gargantos Law Office for private respondent.
QUISUMBING, J.:
For review is the decision1 dated May 21, 1996 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44144, which affirmed the deci_____________
1

CA Records, at 51-59.
552

55
2

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sy vs. Court of Appeals

sion2 of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga,

denying the petition3 for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage

of the spouses Filipina Sy and Fernando Sy.
Petitioner Filipina Y. Sy and private respondent Fernando Sy
contracted marriage on November 15, 1973 at the Church of Our
Lady of Lourdes in Quezon City.4 Both were then 22 years old.
Their union was blessed with two children, Frederick and Farrah
Sheryll who were born on July 8, 1975 and February 14, 1978,
respectively.5
The spouses first established their residence in Singalong,
Manila, then in Apalit, Pampanga, and later at San Matias, Sto.
Tomas, Pampanga. They operated a lumber and hardware business
in Sto. Tomas, Pampanga.6
On September 15, 1983, Fernando left their conjugal dwelling.
Since then, the spouses lived separately, and their two children were
in the custody of their mother. However, their son Frederick
transferred to his fathers residence at Masangkay, Tondo, Manila on
May 15, 1988, and from then on, lived with his father.7
On February 11, 1987, Filipina filed a petition for legal
separation, docketed as Civil Case No. 7900 before the Regional
Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga. Later, upon motion of
petitioner, the action was later amended to a petition for separation
of property on the grounds that her husband abandoned her without
just cause; that they have been living separately for more than one
year; and that they voluntarily entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement dated September 29, 1983, containing the rules that
would govern the dissolution of their conjugal partnership.8
Judgment was rendered dissolving their conjugal partnership of
gains and
_________________
Records, at 136-143.
at 1-5.
4 Exh. A; Id. at 6.
5 Exhs. B & C; Id. at 7-8.
6 Id. at 136.
7 Ibid.
8 Id. at 10-11.
2

3 Id.

553

VOL. 330, APRIL 12, 2000

553
Sy vs. Court of Appeals
approving a regime of separation of properties based on the
Memorandum of Agreement executed by the spouses.9 The trial

court also granted custody of the children to Filipina.10

In May 1988, Filipina filed a criminal action for attempted
parricide against her husband, docketed as Criminal Case No. 8868006, before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Filipina testified
that in the afternoon of May 15, 1988, she went to the dental clinic at
Masangkay, Tondo, Manila, owned by her husband but operated by
his mistress, to fetch her son and bring him to San Fernando,
Pampanga. While she was talking to her son, the boy ignored her
and continued playing with the family computer. Filipina got mad,
took the computer away from her son, and started spanking him. At
that instance, Fernando pulled Filipina away from their son, and
punched her in the different parts of her body. Filipina also claimed
that her husband started choking her when she fell on the floor, and
released her only when he thought she was dead. Filipina suffered
from hematoma and contusions on different parts of her body as a
result of the blows inflicted by her husband, evidenced by a Medical
Certificate issued by a certain Dr. James Ferraren. She said it was
not the first time Fernando maltreated her.11
The Regional Trial Court of Manila, however, in its decision12
dated April 26, 1990, convicted Fernando only of the lesser crime of
slight physical injuries, and sentenced him to 20 days imprisonment.
Petitioner later filed a new action for legal separation against
private respondent, docketed as Civil Case No. 8273, on the
following grounds: (1) repeated physical violence; (2) sexual
infidelity; (3) attempt by respondent against her life; and (4)
abandonment of her by her husband without justifiable cause for
more than one year. The Regional Trial Court
_______________
Exh. E, Id. at 10-18.
Id. at 18.
11 Id. at 23-24.
12 Exh. G; Id. at 23-26.
9

10

554

55
4

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sy vs. Court of Appeals

of San Fernando, Pampanga, in its decision13 dated December 4,
1991, granted the petition on the grounds of repeated physical
violence and sexual infidelity, and issued a decree of legal
separation. It awarded custody of their daughter Farrah Sheryll to

petitioner, and their son Frederick to respondent.

On August 4, 1992, Filipina filed a petition14 for the declaration
of absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando on the ground of
psychological incapacity. She points out that the final judgment
rendered by the Regional Trial Court in her favor, in her petitions for
separation of property and legal separation, and Fernandos
infliction of physical violence on her which led to the conviction of
her husband for slight physical injuries are symptoms of
psychological incapacity. She also cites as manifestations of her
husbands psychological incapacity the following: (1) habitual
alcoholism; (2) refusal to live with her without fault on her part,
choosing to live with his mistress instead; and (3) refusal to have sex
with her, performing the marital act only to satisfy himself.
Moreover, Filipina alleges that such psychological incapacity of her
husband existed from the time of the celebration of their marriage
and became manifest thereafter.15
The Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, in its
decision16 dated December 9, 1993, denied the petition of Filipina Sy
for the declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando. It
stated that the alleged acts of the respondent, as cited by petitioner,
do not constitute psychological incapacity which may warrant the
declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the
decision of the trial court. In the decision17 of the Court of Appeals
dated May 21, 1996, it ruled that the testimony of petitioner
concerning respondents purported psychological
______________
Exh. H; Id. at 27-46.
14 Id. at 1-5.
15 Id. at 3.
16 Id. at 136-143.
17 Supra, note 1.
13

555

VOL. 330, APRIL 12, 2000

555
Sy vs. Court of Appeals
incapacity falls short of the quantum of evidence required to nullify
a marriage celebrated with all the formal and essential requisites of
law. Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner failed to
show that the alleged psychological incapacity of respondent had
existed at the time of the celebration of their marriage in 1973. It

reiterated the finding of the trial court that the couples marital
problems surfaced only in 1983, or almost ten years from the date of
the celebration of their marriage. And prior to their separation in
1983, they were living together harmoniously. Thus, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court which it found to
be in accordance with law and the evidence on record.18 Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration,19 which the Court of Appeals
denied in its resolution dated November 21, 1996.20
Hence, this appeal by certiorari21 wherein petitioner now raises
the following issues:
1.
1)WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS MANIFESTLY OVERLOOKED THE FACT
THAT ON THE DATE OF THE CELEBRATION OF THE
PARTIES MARRIAGE ON NOVEMBER 15, 1973, NOT
DISPUTED BY RESPONDENT FERNANDO, THERE WAS
NO MARRIAGE LICENSE THERETO;
2.
2)WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS
BY STATING THAT THE GROUNDS RELIED UPON BY
APPELLANT [herein petitioner] DO NOT CONSTITUTE
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY AS WOULD JUSTIFY
NULLIFICATION OF HER MARRIAGE TO APPELLEE
[herein respondent];
3.
3)WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS COMMITTED MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS
BY STATING THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO SHOW
THAT THE ALLEGED UNDESIRABLE ACTUATIONS OF
APPELLEE HAD EX_______________
Id. at 59.
Id. at 60-64.
20 Id. at 76.
21 Rollo, pp. 10-55.
18
19

556

55
6
1.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sy vs. Court of Appeals
ISTED OR WERE PRESENT AT THE TIME THEIR
MARRIAGE WAS CELEBRATED IN 1973;
2.
4)WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING THE ERRONEOUS
RULING OF THE LOWER COURT THAT THERE IS A
REDEEMING ATTITUDE SHOWN TO THE COURT BY
RESPONDENT FERNANDO WITH RESPECT TO HIS
CHILDREN AND ALSO BELIEVES THAT
RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS NOT A
REMOTE POSSIBILITY WHICH IS ERRONEOUS; AND
3.
5)WHETHER OR NOT THE CASE OF SANTOS V. COURT
OF APPEALS (240 SCRA 20) IS APPLICABLE HERETO.22
In sum, two issues are to be resolved:
1.
1)Whether or not the marriage between petitioner and private
respondent is void from the beginning for lack of a marriage
license at the time of the ceremony; and
2.
2)Whether or not private respondent is psychologically
incapacitated at the time of said marriage celebration to
warrant a declaration of its absolute nullity.
Petitioner, for the first time, raises the issue of the marriage being
void for lack of a valid marriage license at the time of its celebration.
It appears that, according to her, the date of the actual celebration of
their marriage and the date of issuance of their marriage certificate
and marriage license are different and incongruous.
Although we have repeatedly ruled that litigants cannot raise an
issue for the first time on appeal, as this would contravene the basic
rules of fair play and justice,23 in a number of instances, we have
relaxed observance of procedural rules, noting that technicalities are
not ends in themselves but exist
_______________
Id. at 31
Sumbad. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106060, June 21, 1999, p. 23, 308
SQRA 575; Modina vs. CA, G.R. No. 109355, October 29, 1999, p. 13, 317 SCRA
696; citing Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA
145 (1997).
557
22
23

VOL. 330, APRIL 12, 2000

557
Sy vs. Court of Appeals
to protect and promote substantive rights of litigants. We said that
certain rules ought not to be applied with severity and rigidity if by
so doing, the very reason for their existence would be defeated.24
Hence, when substantial justice plainly requires, exempting a

particular case from the operation of technicalities should not be

subject to cavil.25 In our view, the case at bar requires that we
address the issue of the validity of the marriage between Filipina and
Fernando which petitioner claims is void from the beginning for lack
of a marriage license, in order to arrive at a just resolution of a
deeply seated and violent conflict between the parties. Note,
however, that here the pertinent facts are not disputed; and what is
required now is a declaration of their effects according to existing
law.
Petitioner states that though she did not categorically state in her
petition for annulment of marriage before the trial court that the
incongruity in the dates of the marriage license and the celebration
of the marriage itself would lead to the conclusion that her marriage
to Fernando was void from the beginning, she points out that these
critical dates were contained in the documents she submitted before
the court. The date of issue of the marriage license and marriage
certificate, September 17, 1974, is contained in their marriage
contract which was attached as Annex A in her petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage before the trial court, and
thereafter marked as Exhibit A in the course of the trial.26 The date
of celebration of their marriage at Our Lady of Lourdes, Sta.
Teresita Parish, on November 15, 1973, is admitted both by
petitioner and private respondent, as stated in paragraph three of
petitioners petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of
marriage before the trial court, and private
_______________
24 Government Service Insurance System vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 187,
198 (1997); Mauna vs. Civil Service Commission, 232 SCRA 388, 398 (1994).
25 GSIS vs. CA, at 198, citing Aguilar vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 371 (1995).
26 Exhibit A, Records, p. 6; Rollo, p. 72.
558

55
8

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sy vs. Court of Appeals

respondents answer admitting it.27 This fact was also affirmed by
petitioner, in open court, on January 22, 1993, during her direct
examination,28 as follows:
ATTY. RAZON:
In the last hearing, you said that you
were married on November 15, 1973?

FILIPINA SY:
Yes, Sir.
November 15, 1973, also appears as the date of marriage of the
parents in both their sons and daughters birth certificates which are
also attached as Annexes B and C in the petition for declaration
of absolute nullity of marriage before the trial court, and thereafter
marked as Exhibits B and C in the course of the trial.29 These
pieces of evidence on record plainly and indubitably show that on
the day of the marriage ceremony, there was no marriage license. A
marriage license is a formal requirement; its absence renders the
marriage void ab initio. In addition, the marriage contract shows that
the marriage license, numbered 6237519, was issued in Carmona,
Cavite, yet, neither petitioner nor private respondent ever resided in
Carmona.30
Carefully reviewing the documents and the pleadings on record,
we find that indeed petitioner did not expressly state in her petition
before the trial court that there was incongruity between the date of
the actual celebration of their marriage and the date of the issuance
of their marriage license. From the documents she presented, the
marriage license was issued on September 17, 1974, almost one year
after the ceremony took place on November 15, 1973. The
ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was indeed contracted
without a marriage license. Nowhere do we find private respondent
denying these dates on record. Article 80 of the Civil Code31 is
_______________
Records, at 1 and 53.
28 TSN, 22 January 1993, p. 4.
29 Records, pp. 7 & 8; Exh. A, Rollo, p. 72.
30 Rollo, at 20.
31 Art. 80. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
27

559

VOL. 330, APRIL 12, 2000

559
Sy vs. Court of Appeals
clearly applicable in this case. There being no claim of an
exceptional character, the purported marriage between petitioner and
private respondent could not be classified among those enumerated
in Articles 72-7932 of the Civil Code. We
_________________
xxx
(3) Those solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of exceptional
character;
xxx

ART. 72. When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties to the conjugal
union or commits acts which tend to bring danger, dishonor or injury to the other or to
the family, the aggrieved party may apply to the court for relief.
ART. 73. Either spouse may exercise any legitimate profession, occupation,
business or activity without the consent of the other. The latter may object only on
valid, serious, and moral grounds.
In case of disagreement, the court shall decide whether or not:
1. (1)The objection is proper, and
2. (2)Benefit has accrued to the family prior to the objection or thereafter. If the
benefit accrued prior to the objection, the resulting obligation shall be
enforced against the separate property of the spouse who has not obtained
consent.
The foregoing provisions shall not prejudice the rights of creditors who acted in
good faith.
ART. 74. The property relations between husband and wife shall be governed in
the following order:
1. (1)By marriage settlements executed before the marriage;
2. (2)By the provisions of this Code; and
3. (3)By the local customs.
ART. 75. The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements, agree upon the
regime of absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of
property, or any other regime. In the absence of marriage settlements, or when the
regime agreed upon is void, the system of absolute community of property as
established in this Code shall govern.
ART. 76. In order that any modification in the marriage settlements may be valid,
it must be made before the celebration of the
560
32

56
0

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sy vs. Court of Appeals

thus conclude that under Article 80 of the Civil Code, the marriage
between petitioner and private respondent is void from the
beginning.
We note that their marriage certificate and marriage license are
only photocopies. So are the birth certificates of their son Frederick
and daughter Farrah Sheryll. Nevertheless, these documents were
marked as Exhibits during the course of the trial below, which shows
that these have been examined and admitted by the trial court, with
no objections having been made as to their authenticity and due
execution. Likewise, no objection was interposed to petitioners
testimony in open court when she affirmed that the date of the actual
celebration of their marriage was on November 15, 1973. We are of
the view, therefore, that having been admitted in evidence, with the
adverse party failing to timely object thereto, these documents are
deemed sufficient proof of the facts contained therein.33

_________________
marriage, subject to the provisions of Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and 136.
ART. 77. The marriage settlements and any modification thereof shall be in
writing, signed by the parties and executed before the celebration of the marriage.
They shall not prejudice third persons unless they are registered in the local civil
registry where the marriage contract is recorded as well as in the proper registries of
property.
ART. 78. A minor who according to law may contract marriage may also enter
into marriage settlements, but they shall be valid only if the persons designated in
Article 14 to give consent to the marriage are made parties to the agreement, subject
to the provisions of Title DC of this Code.
ART. 79. For the validity of any marriage settlements executed by a person upon
whom a sentence of civil interdiction has been pronounced or who is subject to any
other disability, it shall be indispensable for the guardian appointed by a competent
court to be made a party thereto.
33 See also Son vs. Son, 251 SCRA 556 (1995); Tison vs. CA, 276 SCRA 582
(1997); Quebral vs. CA, 252 SCRA 353 (1996).
561

VOL. 330, APRIL 12, 2000

561
Sy vs. Court of Appeals
The remaining issue on the psychological incapacity of private
respondent need no longer detain us. It is mooted by our conclusion
that the marriage of petitioner to respondent is void ab initio for lack
of a marriage license at the time their marriage was solemnized.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, dated December
9, 1993 as well as the Decision promulgated on May 21, 1996 by the
Court of Appeals and its Resolution dated November 21, 1996 in
CA-G.R. No. 44144 are set aside. The marriage celebrated on
November 15, 1973 between petitioner Filipina Yap and private
respondent Fernando Sy is hereby declared void ab initio for lack of
a marriage license at the time of celebration. No pronouncement as
to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment set aside.
Notes.Secret marriage is a legally non-existent phrase but
ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage celebrated without the
knowledge of the relatives and/or friends of either or both of the
contracting parties. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 257
[1994])
A judge who solemnizes a marriage without the required

marriage license dismally fails to live up to his commitment to be

the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.
(Moreno vs. Bernabe, 246 SCRA 120 [1995])
o0o
562

Copyright 2012 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.